SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Kishan - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3391 of 2021
Decided On : 21-03-2022




Consent from a minor is legally immaterial in cases of sexual offenses, regardless of circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Bail application - Petitioner seeks bail in a case of alleged kidnapping and rape of a minor - The prosecution's case stems from an FIR alleging that petitioner kidnapped and had sexual relations with the victim - The victim, now 16, testified she willingly married the petitioner and lived with him - The court noted that the victim's consent is irrelevant in light of her age - Petitioner, being 18 during the incident, was granted bail given the circumstances including the lack of serious allegations against him and the welfare of their child. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Consent of minor - The court reiterated that a minor's consent to physical relations is legally immaterial. (Paras 5-6)

(C) Judicial custody - Keeping the petitioner in custody would serve no useful purpose, given the completion of the investigation and the child’s welfare. (Para 6)

(D) Reminders of court’s impartial stance - The court clarified that its observations should not be considered an opinion on the merits of the case. (Para 8)

Table of Content
1. overview of the factual background of the case. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding the petitioner's innocence and custodial relevance. (Para 2 , 3)
3. the court’s analysis of consent and the circumstances of the case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. conclusion and order for bail. (Para 7 , 8)

ORDER

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 284/2021 under Sections 363/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act registered at Police Station Amar Colony. In brief the facts of the case are that on 08.06.2021 a PCR Call vide DD No. 45 regarding " Sant Nagar Church Garhi, East of Kailash, caller ke beti Ms. P, jise 11 month pahle ek ladka apne saath le gaya, caller vaha jaata hai toh maarne ki dhamki deta hai aur pareshan karta hai, ladke ka naam Krishan hai" was received in the police station. During enquiry, PCR caller `R' alleged that a boy namely Kishan (present petitioner) kidnapped her daughter Ms. P who was 16 years in Feb 2020 and he kept her with him forcefully. It is the further case of the prosecution that after receiving of the PCR Call, victim Ms. P, age-16 years was examined who stated that she went with petitioner on 20.02.2020 and they got married, and she is residing with petitioner and now she is having pregnancy of six months. She also stated that her parents have knowledge about this and they often visit her at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the above mentioned case has been registered.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 8.6.2021. He further submitted that complainant got married with petitioner out of her own free will without any coercion force or pressure, and since then they both have been living and enjoying matrimonial life happily. He further submitted that complainant is peacefully living in her matrimonial home. He further submitted that marriage of the petitioner and complainant was duly accepted by the parents of the complainant and they used to visit the matrimonial home of the complainant from time to time. He further submitted that petitioner always endeavoured to provide all the comforts and happiness to his wife, complainant herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 7.6.2021 i.e a day before lodging the said FIR complainant's father had a fight with her daughter and the petitioner, and being the caring husband he tried to protect her and defend her against her father. So, the father of the complainant made a call at 100 number and made false and baseless complaint against the petitioner just to satisfy his ulterior motive. He further submitted that the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C in which she has specifically stated that she left her parents home as her parents used to mentally and physically torture her and they stopped her education, and they always used to say that they would send her to brothel. He further submitted that on 9.6.2021 the medical examination of the complainant was done, in which she narrated that she knew the petitioner herein since she was 10 years, and she married the petitioner and thereafter had sexual relation after marriage. She also stated that her parents were aware of the marriage and accepted the same as well. She also stated that her parents had filed the complaint for kidnapping and rape against the petitioner on 8.6.2021 which is false. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that investigation has already been completed and charge sheet in this case has been filed qua the petitioner herein.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the date of birth certificate, was a young boy aged around 18 years at the time of the incident, and in these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody, and now he has minor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top